Appeal No. 2002-0418
Application No. 08/872,836
embodiments. (See brief at pages 5-6.) The examiner maintains that the pattern
recognition system in Breed is a common element to the seat belt and airbag systems
and that the air bag deployment system is operative only upon a determination of a
proper passenger position within the seat. (See answer at page 5.) We agree with the
examiner. Appellants argue that Breed detects the kind of object and not the size of an
object. (See brief at page 6.) We disagree with appellants, and we find that Breed
does broadly disclose the detection of the size of an occupant. Additionally, we find
that Breed specifically states that an objective of the system is to “determine the
position, velocity or size of an occupant in a motor vehicle and to utilize this information
to control the rate of gas generation, or the amount of gas generated by an airbag
inflator system.” (Breed at Col. 8; Object 3, emphasis added.) Therefore, we will
sustain the rejection of independent claim 21 and its dependent claims 23 and 25-27
which have not been separately argued.
With respect to dependent claims 28-30, appellants argue that the claims all
relate to analyzing an image to determine kinematic information about a vehicle
passenger and that Breed merely teaches position information. (See brief at page 7.)
The examiner maintains that Breed teaches the velocity information with respect to
head position in the seatbelt control. The examiner cites to various portions of Breed to
support this conclusion. From our review of these portions of Breed, we find no clear
teaching of the use of kinematic information in the control of an airbag. Therefore, we
cannot sustain the rejection of dependent claims 28-30.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007